I don't hate Dixon or anything, but giving him a 10! year extension after going 0-2 in the post season smacks of the Stillerz giving Kordell an 8 year contract after he cried on the sidelines after being pulled.

Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..

Yes?

So what is this with the snide "good luck with that"? Apparently they change things when they aren't doing what they want. Weren't getting to the championship games, so they brought in a new coach. He stopped getting the job done, so they're going with someone new. Seems obvious for a program that wants to win...or so one would think.

Idoit40fans wrote:Hasn't UCLA been to more final fours in the past decade than Pitt has, ..

Yes?

So what is this with the snide "good luck with that"? Apparently they change things when they aren't doing what they want. Weren't getting to the championship games, so they brought in a new coach. He stopped getting the job done, so they're going with someone new. Seems obvious for a program that wants to win...or so one would think.

Firing Ben Howland isn't proof that they want to win. Firing Ben Howland is proof that they're impatient. UCLA is stuck in the 70s when they could just pay for whomever and dominate the field. No one does that anymore.

Also, comparing UCLA to Pitt is absurd. Certainly expectations and resources are much different.

I guess we'll see how good of a job UCLA is perceived to be by who they bring in for a coach.

I think there's a lot of al Davis type of guys. Anyways, I'm good friends with a ucla alum /major ucla fan. He stresses that it really wasn't the recent lack of success, but all the "adversity" surrounding him and the program. Apparently he's burned a lot of bridges, recruiting connections and a lot of powerful people just couldn't stand him. Obviously, winning more probably solves / covers that up, but I think there's more than that here

5 seasons of early exits is impatient? Had he not had an elite program the prior 3 seasons, i'd buy that, but when you go from great for 3 years to mediocre for 5 years, hard to call that impatient. Results-oriented maybe. The firing of Howland is far closer to sanity than extending Dixon for another decade.

Idoit40fans wrote:5 seasons of early exits is impatient? Had he not had an elite program the prior 3 seasons, i'd buy that, but when you go from great for 3 years to mediocre for 5 years, hard to call that impatient. Results-oriented maybe. The firing of Howland is far closer to sanity than extending Dixon for another decade.

I personally think it's two totally different situations. UCLA is a blueblood elite type school. Pitt is not.

Prior to the Howland Dixon era, except for a 3 or 4 year run in the mid to late 80s, Pitt's BB program was absolute crap. I think Dixon is one of the main reasons it has maintaned any kind of success.

UCLA can go out and get a top tier coach. I don't think Pitt can. Pitt is much better off keeping Dixon.

Idoit40fans wrote:5 seasons of early exits is impatient? Had he not had an elite program the prior 3 seasons, i'd buy that, but when you go from great for 3 years to mediocre for 5 years, hard to call that impatient. Results-oriented maybe. The firing of Howland is far closer to sanity than extending Dixon for another decade.

Howland spent 10 seasons in Westwood, finishing with a 233-107 record.Howland had the longest tenure of any UCLA BB coach since a guy named John Wooden.Howland is coming off an outstanding coaching performance, with the Bruins winning the Pac-12 Conference regular-season championship.Howland won his fourth conference championship, more than any UCLA coach other than John Wooden.

It didn't help the Bruins' postseason chances when freshman guard Jordan Adams broke his right foot in the Pac-12 tournament semifinals.

Freshman Shabazz Muhammad went through a lengthy NCAA investigation, and wasn't cleared to play until three games into the season. Freshman Tony Parker had a series of injuries and was slow to develop. Junior guard Tyler Lamb and junior center Joshua Smith, who battled weight problems, transferred in November, sapping the Bruins' depth. Smith was also UCLA's most formidable inside player.

Guerrero, ULCA's AD, said that "I evaluate a coach on a number of other things besides wins and losses. I looked at the entire program, where we were and especially where we're headed. Now was the appropriate time to make a change and get a fresh start."

Which is to say, it's all about money.

The Pauley just went through a renovation that cost $138 million. The renovation put a lot of pressure on UCLA to sell season tickets. But with a per-ticket donation to the Wooden Athletic Fund ranging from $100 to $17,000 for priority seats, that task proved difficult.

"There are a number factors that dictate whether people come to games or not," Guerrero said. "We obviously do need to generate as much fan support as we can, get people in the seats."

If I'm not mistaken, "The Pete" is almost always sold out right?

*That's* the major reason Dixon still has a job and Howland doesn't, not their respective Tourney Win/Loss records.

To the crowd who thinks Dixon can't be let go because they couldn't possibly find somebody else to keep the program standing in place for a decade: Who was Jamie Dixon other than a no-name assistant of under Ben Howland before Howland left?

King Sid the Great 87 wrote:To the crowd who thinks Dixon can't be let go because they couldn't possibly find somebody else to keep the program standing in place for a decade: Who was Jamie Dixon other than a no-name assistant of under Ben Howland before Howland left?

We were pretty damn lucky. That is not going to happen every time. Look at all of the Pitt hires before this one both in FB and BB over the last 3 decades. Dixon is the only one that truly worked out.